Request for classification into special working conditions for work carried out under radiological risk III and IV for certain periods of time. Failure to meet conditions. Increment for radiological risk. Existence of previous court rulings
DREPTUL MUNCII ŞI ASIGURĂRILOR SOCIALE
Abstract
Since 2011, in the case of temporary incapacity for work and/or rest leave, the same conditions for working under special conditions could be applied for the entire duration of working hours, the only difference being that it was sufficient that only the work on the day before the leave was carried out under these conditions. At the same time, the legal provision establishes that the classification is made on the basis of documents and records from which the activity of the insured results.
It is not sufficient that the employee works in conditions of radiological risk IV and III, but it is necessary that the plaintiffs' workplace is located exclusively in the controlled area and that the work carried out exceeds 50% of the working hours. If, however, the claimants carry out their activities both in the intermittently controlled zone and in the surveillance zone, as defined in Annex No 1 to Order No 14/2000 of the President of the National Commission for the Control of Nuclear Activities approving the Basic Safety Standards, then they are classified in risk zone II, as in the present case.
The finding that the radiological risk bonus had been granted and the subsequent inclusion of the bonus in the income base on which the salary negotiations were based was established by a number of court judgments which have become res judicata. The principle of res judicata prevents not only the retrial of a case which has been terminated, with the same parties, the same subject-matter and the same cause of action, but also contradictions between two judgments, in the sense that the rights recognised by a final judgment are not contradicted by a subsequent judgment. For this very reason, no other factual situation than that set out in the aforementioned judgments can be established, because the same right to the radiological risk bonus cannot exist for some employees and not for others, given that they work in the same employing establishment
